People v. Brexton
939 N.E.2d 1076
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- defendant was charged with two counts of retail theft and later a burglary count was added after he withdrew a guilty plea; the initial plea was a blind plea concerning Class 3 theft with a potential Class 4 merge; at remand the court allowed withdrawal and the State later added burglary; trial resulted in guilty verdicts on all three counts; defendant argued vindictiveness and improper admonishments and speedy-trial issues; the appellate court vacated the burglary conviction and remanded for sentencing on retail theft counts.
- at a later stage the appellate court found a presumption of vindictiveness and vacated the burglary conviction, remanding for sentencing on the retail theft charges only.
- Rule 605(b) admonitions warned that upon withdrawal charges could be reinstated; the State argued no vindictiveness given its charging discretion.
- The appellate court relied on Blackledge and Walker to establish a presumption of vindictiveness when a more serious charge is filed after a defendant withdraws a plea, and vacated the burglary conviction.
- The decision did not address the speedy-trial issue because vindictiveness was dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing burglary after withdrawal shows vindictiveness | Brexton (People) argues vindictiveness after withdrawal | Brexton argues State retaliated for withdrawal | Yes, presumption of vindictiveness; burglary vacated |
| Whether Rule 605(b) admonishments and lack of prior notice impacted vindictiveness | State relies on Rule 605(b) to justify charging | Brexton asserts inadequate admonishments and lack of notice contributed to vindictiveness | Yes, admonishments insufficient to justify filing burglary; vindictiveness presumed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1974) (due process prevents vindictiveness when new, more serious charges follow appeal)
- Walker v. State, 84 Ill.2d 512 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981) (vindictiveness when prosecutor changes position after plea withdrawal without new facts)
- Smith, 59 Ill.2d 236 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1974) (vacating conviction where charges filed after withdrawal of plea without adequate justification)
- McGrath, 182 Ill.App.3d 389 (Illinois Appellate Court, 1989) (correlates Rule 605(b) admonitions with reinstate of charges after withdrawal)
- McCutcheon, 68 Ill.2d 101 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1977) (prohibition on reinstating dismissed charges without proper admonitions)
- Prince, 186 Ill.App.3d 1043 (Illinois Appellate Court, 1989) (discussed but disfavored; distinguished on facts; not controlling here)
- Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (Supreme Court, 1982) (distinguished as pretrial; allowed actual vindictiveness to be proven)
- Hall, 311 Ill.App.3d 905 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2000) (vindictiveness presumption after post-plea aggravated charges; pretrial discretion)